If you’re the one quoting Wikipedia and have knowledge that the data you quoted is incorrect, with source and everything, it’s kind of on you to update the article.

This logic doesn't track for me.

I proposed the case where I believe the current Wikipedia entry to be true.

Wouldn't the person who believes the contrary case be the best person to update the wiki?

I was in the general IT space for Superfish and remember only models found at big box stores were affected. Not the typical "business-grade" machines typically bought by government, industrial, and enterprise. This article confirms my memory https://www.welivesecurity.com/2015/02/20/lenovo-superfish-d...

I believe that we all suffer from normalcy bias.[0] I also just want my awesome five year old ThinkPad to be trustworthy.

However, I know that trusting the CCP is not a great idea. Everyone, including the USA and the CCP, invest so much money in Advanced Persistent Threat actors. So on the side, buying the ThinkPad line would be the equivalent of the NSA's Tailored Access Operations, wouldn't it?

Why wouldn't they take advantage of this? Why take the chance if you work on anything that is gov or commercially sensitive?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias

note: if anyone could correct my terminology or logic here, I would appreciate it.

The article's talk page already has a request for an impartial editor to weigh in, though several months old.